Search results

The aim of this study is to critically examine the transparency and reporting practice of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) controversies within the pharmaceutical and textile industry. Based on the four core dimensions of transparency, we explore which reporting medium is most frequently chosen for the disclosure of negative ESG contributions, the nature and information content of the disclosed incidents and how voluntary adherence to sustainability reporting standards and independent assurances affect the reporting.

We use conceptual content analysis and employ a counter-accounting approach to analyse the disclosure of 190 ESG controversies in 104 corporate reports from the pharmaceutical and textile industries, covering a three-year period from 2018–2020.

The very large majority of controversies are reported only once in the legal proceedings section of the annual report, but not again in the sustainability report, where it would be necessary to provide a balanced picture. Moreover, companies tend to disclose only those controversies that are either associated with high media attention or are expected to be related to litigation, resulting in 26 per cent of controversies not being disclosed at all. The overall quality of disclosure is unsatisfactory and in need of improvement, but comparably higher in the pharmaceutical industry than in the textile industry. Interestingly, neither the application of sustainability reporting standards nor independent assurance seems to positively impact the disclosure behaviour.

Our paper provides new insights into the shortcomings of current ESG controversy disclosures by revealing patterns of selective reporting practices and the strategic framing of issues. In addition, it contributes to the debates on corporate cherry-picking in the adoption of sustainability reporting guidelines and on the effectiveness of external assurance of sustainability reports. Based on the findings, it offers important implications for practitioners, in particular management, policy makers, rating agencies and assurance providers.

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to deconstruct the idea of a ‘Big Society’. We do so by underlining the left libertarian tradition in which civil society led economic activity such as the solidarity economy is embedded.

Methodology – By analysing the thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a key thinker and activist in the 19th libertarian socialist movement, we identify the principles guiding the solidarity economy. We illustrate our argument by drawing on qualitative research conducted on solidarity economy organisations in France.

Findings – The solidarity economy illustrates an alternative to both capitalism and state socialism: libertarian socialism. This chapter demonstrates that this left libertarianism is not a new utopia. It is rooted in the long (but marginal) history of libertarian socialism, which was born in the 19th century.

Originality – An economy managed from the left based on libertarian political principles seems to be a novel experiment. We seek to illustrate what this may look like using the example of the present solidarity economy. However, we also emphasise that this would imply a reversal of the political programme of the ‘Big Society’. It would imply the redistribution of economic and political power not only from the state to local communities, but also from company directors and their shareholders in order to realise not a charitable but an economically empowered civil society.

The idea of “best practice” is very much built into information systems and the ways in which they organise and structure work. The purpose of this paper is to examine how “best practice” may be identified (produced) through a community-based evaluation process as opposed to traditional expert-based evaluation frameworks. The paper poses the following research questions: how does “best practice” (e)valuation in online communities differ depending on whether they are produced by community members or experts? And what role play these two practices of valuation for online community performance?

The paper is based on a three-year ethnographic study of a large-scale online community initiative run by the European Commission. Participant observation of online and offline activities (23 events) was complemented with 73 semi-structured interviews with 58 interviewees. The paper draws on Science and Technology Studies, and in particular actor-network theory.

Promoting the idea of “best practice” is not just an exercise about determining what “best” is but rather supposes that best is something that can travel across sites and be replicated. The paper argues that it is crucial to understand the work performed to coordinate multiple practices of producing “best practice” as apparatuses of valuation. Hence if practices are shared or circulate within an online community, this is possible because of material-discursive practices of dissociation and association, through agential cuts. These cuts demarcate what is important – and foregrounded – and what is backgrounded. In so doing new “practice objects” are produced.

The research was conducted in the European public sector where participants are not associated through shared organisational membership (e.g. as employees of the same organisation). An environment for determining “best practice” that is limited to an organisation’s employees and more homogeneous may reveal further dynamics for “best practice” production.

This paper sheds light on why it is so difficult to reach commensuration in crowd-sourced environments.

The paper provides an analysis of how online community members collaborate in order to identify relevant and meaningful user-generated content. It argues that “best practice” is produced through a process of commensuration.

This paper aims to examine urban community gardens from the urban planning perspective. The paper analyses the Berlin case study Himmelbeet and its relation to the concept of critical placemaking (Toolis, 2017) and placemaking principles of Madden and Schwartz (1999).

The study is based on participatory action research. It examines one specific case study in Berlin where the author volunteered for several years. The set of placemaking principles is used as an ex-post analysis tool to evaluate how the community garden meets the criteria of placemaking.

The paper shows that the urban community garden can be considered as a placemaking scheme although it was not planned with placemaking instruments. The garden’s placemaking process shows strategies to challenge issues of exclusion, disinvestment and depoliticization of public spaces and thus exemplifies the possibilities of citizen-controlled placemaking processes.

The paper links placemaking with urban community gardens by assessing the placemaking principles and discussing the criteria of critical placemaking. The paper also contributes to a better understanding of urban community gardens in relation to current trends of austerity and urban inequalities.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the multiplicity of views on integrated reporting and to consider the possibility of, and impediments to, reconciling these multiple rationales (“orders of worth”) and thus gain legitimacy through a compromise. This sheds light on the understanding of integrated reporting as such, as well as shows how legitimacy struggles are resolved in practice around complex accounting practices in heterogeneous environments.

This explorative paper empirically applies Boltanski and Thévenot's sociology of worth (SOW) framework to analyse integrated reporting in the Dutch reporting field. Data were collected using multiple methods, including 64 semi-structured in-depth interviews with a wide range of relevant actors, and documentary analysis. Data were coded for the presence of orders of worth and legitimating compromise mechanisms.

The author's analysis suggests that integrated reporting combines the disparate domains of industrial, market, civic and green order of worth. These different logics of valuation need to be reconciled in a compromise in order for integrated reporting to become a legitimate practice. Such a compromise requires a common interest, avoidance of clarification and maintenance of ambiguity. The author's analysis suggests these mechanisms are violated though, with the risk that integrated reporting gets captured by investors and accountants, leading to local private arrangements rather than durable legitimate compromise.

First, SOW informs the understanding of integrated reporting. It highlights in particular its fragility as fundamentally different rationales need to be reconciled, which is a challenge yet also gives rise to creative frictions. Second, the SOW framework creates the possibility for scholars to look closer at the dynamics of legitimacy and at the possible mechanisms to attain legitimacy in fragmented and heterogeneous environment.

The SOW framework offers tools for practitioners, in particular those working within a pluralistic context. The various mechanisms of compromise discussed in this paper provide practical guidelines for how to manage this complexity and gain or maintain legitimacy.

This rich empirical study combines a novel theoretical approach (the SOW framework) with an analysis of the relatively unexplored topic of integrated reporting. At the same time it introduces a conceptualisation of legitimacy that highlights communicative and constitutive dialogue and goes beyond fit and compliance.

This article develops a viable means of assessment of the suitability for disposal of hundreds of national government offices in Jakarta as a facet of the relocation of Indonesia's capital from Java to Borneo.

A “disposal assessment model”, based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and a bespoke model of office adaptation, is constructed and applied to the population of to-be-vacated public office buildings in Jakarta.

In this initial demonstration mode, the disposal assessment model is tested on a live dataset and found able not only to rank buildings for disposal against stated objectives but also to incorporate more complex variables and lead into other forms of business analysis.

A fit-for-purpose model is shown capable of assisting decision-makers involved in major asset disposal, while also accounting for the stances of project stakeholders.

The model offers the possibility to evaluate and, likely, optimise net social benefit for Jakarta and Indonesia both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The disposal assessment model builds on prior work in operations research and property management to develop a new construct applicable to a novel asset issue of massive proportions.